Jacobien Rutgers
My research focuses on the interaction between primary European law and private and private international law. Past publications involve, inter alia, the competence of the European Union to adopt a European civil code or an optional instrument and to what extent national rules of private law may violate the free movement rules of the TFEU.
See my ssrn-page: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=408412
My latest research project concerns the interaction between European contract law and the welfare state.
I teach consumer law, European private law, comparative law and contract law. In the past, I also taught tort, property law and private international law.
Phone: +31 20 5986292
Address: Faculty of Law
Department of Private Law
De Boelelaan 1105
1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
See my ssrn-page: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=408412
My latest research project concerns the interaction between European contract law and the welfare state.
I teach consumer law, European private law, comparative law and contract law. In the past, I also taught tort, property law and private international law.
Phone: +31 20 5986292
Address: Faculty of Law
Department of Private Law
De Boelelaan 1105
1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (7)
Uploads
Papers by Jacobien Rutgers
collective proceedings that was initiated by a consumer organization to prohibit allegedly unfair terms in the general conditions of a seller. The terms were used in electronic b2c contracts, where the seller targeted consumers in their home country. The CJEU distinguished between the conflict rule concerning collective action, Article 6(1) Rome II, and the conflict rule concerning the fairness of the term, Article 6(2) Rome I. In addition, the CJEU introduced a new test to assess the fairness of a choice-of-law term under Directive 93/13 on unfair contract terms. In the note, it is argued that the CJEU’s distinction between those two conflict rules is unnecessary and that the test that the CJEU formulated to assess whether a choice-of-law term is unfair, is less favourable to the consumer than the tests formulated in prior decisions.
collective proceedings that was initiated by a consumer organization to prohibit allegedly unfair terms in the general conditions of a seller. The terms were used in electronic b2c contracts, where the seller targeted consumers in their home country. The CJEU distinguished between the conflict rule concerning collective action, Article 6(1) Rome II, and the conflict rule concerning the fairness of the term, Article 6(2) Rome I. In addition, the CJEU introduced a new test to assess the fairness of a choice-of-law term under Directive 93/13 on unfair contract terms. In the note, it is argued that the CJEU’s distinction between those two conflict rules is unnecessary and that the test that the CJEU formulated to assess whether a choice-of-law term is unfair, is less favourable to the consumer than the tests formulated in prior decisions.
If the answers of the Dutch interviews are compared to other surveys and interviews, the following issues come up. First, the role of a practicing lawyer does not seem that important with respect to a choice of law. Secondly, the issue of a choice of law is a matter of a survival of the fittest. The strongest party imposes its choice on the other party, since the applicable legal system is just one of the risks involved in a transaction, weighed against others by the project’s manager. If this is taken into account, it is questionable whether theories such as regulatory competition can be substantiated. From these interviews it seems to follow that there is no isolated law market, where parties merely consider the rules and choose what fits them best nor is there a strong indication that countries really adapt the content of their substantive law to attract more contracts.